External review finds Marblehead special‑education services improving, highlights staffing, data and transition gaps

An external review commissioned by the Marblehead School Committee found that the district’s special‑education operation shows clear signs of improvement — stronger administrative involvement, more consistent procedures and targeted professional development — while identifying continuing gaps in staffing, data systems and transition planning.

Academic Discoveries, an outside vendor hired to perform an independent review, examined six focus areas: program organization and management; student identification and placement; program service delivery and instructional practice; staff support and development; compliance; and stakeholder engagement. Reviewers interviewed staff, parents and administrators, observed classrooms and examined district documentation.

Key findings in the report included: • Strengths: reviewers found committed special‑education staff, pockets of strong instructional practice and an increased administrative focus on compliance. Staff and parents reported better responsiveness from the central office, and building teams reported deeper collaboration. The district has invested in training and mentoring for new special‑education teachers and expanded coaching and learning‑walk practices. • Areas for improvement: the review flagged uneven service delivery across buildings, limited vertical alignment of specialized programs, inconsistency in progress‑monitoring practices and gaps in transition planning (between grade bands and for post‑secondary steps). The reviewers also recommended clearer caseload/workload analysis — not just counting students but accounting for the intensity and type of services those students require. • Data and compliance: Academic Discoveries recommended more consistent progress monitoring and better use of data systems. The report noted that some state reporting fields were combined in the vendor’s source data (for example, residential vs. public‑day placements), and the district said it would provide a clearer breakout of those categories.

District actions already under way, as presented at the meeting, include: • A “master tracker” for special‑education timelines and compliance deadlines so schools can meet state timelines for evaluations and IEPs. • A special‑education procedures manual that spells out how the district implements legal requirements and hyperlinks necessary forms and timelines for staff. • New professional development and a planned purchase of a curriculum‑aligned IEP tool (Goalbook) won via a state grant; the district said Goalbook will help teams generate standards‑aligned, measurable goals and built‑in progress monitoring. • Expanded training in de‑escalation and safety practices (safety‑care/QBS training), and the district reported a major reduction in reported restraint incidents: five state‑reported restraints so far this school year versus 49 the prior year and 72 the year before that. • Work with a vendor, Landmark Outreach, and internal staff to standardize language‑based and therapeutic classroom practices and entrance/exit criteria.

Presenters Lisa Maria Pulido and Victoria Ryan said the review validated areas the administration had already identified and that the district has moved quickly to implement both compliance tools and staff training. “This report was requested by the committee to uncover where we needed to improve,” Pulido said; she and Ryan described a mix of short‑term fixes and multi‑year changes the district will pursue.

Next steps spelled out at the meeting included finalizing data breakouts for out‑of‑district placements, piloting Goalbook and rolling out further targeted professional development for co‑teaching, MTSS and progress monitoring. The district also committed to clearer transition planning for students approaching major moves (for example, middle‑to‑high school and post‑secondary planning for older students).